Todays cooker install

Went yesterday to do a cooker swap. 6mm cable coming from outlet. Cooker switch above with integral socket outlet, with a washing machine plugged in. 9KW cooker, old and new same rating. 32A MCB. I had already upgraded the bonding at a previous visit. Seemed simple.

Looked in Cooker switch and saw 2x2.5mm cables feeding it, with 6mm t&e out. There was a loose(ish) 2.5mm neutral, it fell out when I was moving the faceplate.

Looked in CU 2x2.5mm wires in the cooker mcb

Disconnected the circuit.

So Today I ran 6mm all around the kitchen to a new one gang switch and used one of the legs of the 2.5mm cable as an unfused spur, from a socket circuit in the CU, for a double socket above the freestanding washing machine.

I can only think that the "sparkies" who installed the CU weren't given any 6mm cable, so improvised.

Also it was a split load (plastic) CU with an RCD main switch and a second RCD. They obviously did not know how to wire 2 RCDs so connected everything to the main switch RCD, leaving the second one at the far left.

I am going to recommend tests on the other circuits, just in case. Client is the Church, God bless em.



I was going to do a "spot the fault" thread, but the pic quality is v poor.

The CU looks a bit of a mess, but was it right to condemn the cooker circuit?.. remember of course, that subject to certain requirements being met, parallelled up conductors are allowed, though you would not normally expect this approach to be in use in th domestic sector.

I think I'd just just have connected the cooker and noted the un-usual arrangement on the MWC, provided it did appar to be conductors in parralell rather than a 32A point load on a ring that had other points or anything

No other points connected, the whole run was visible and I used the same route for the 6mm.

Pheonix, after having a good read of the regs (433.4, 434.4 and 523.7), you are correct. Perhaps it wasn't necessary to condemn the arrangement. But it felt wrong to have a washing machine and a cooker running on possibly only one 2.5mm cable, if the other cable got damaged.

Rob_the_rich said:

Disconnected the circuit.

Click to expand...

Why? Nothing wrong with it being fed by multiple conductors in parallel.

Lurch said:

Why? Nothing wrong with it being fed by multiple conductors in parallel.

Click to expand...

dont forget if you have 3 or more in parallel, then each individual one requires protection at both ends

Andy™ said:

dont forget if you have 3 or more in parallel, then each individual one requires protection at both ends

Click to expand...

434.4 says that, but only under fault current, and only if a single protective device may not be effective. You could argue that the RCD would provide adequate fault current protection, even though it is for additional protection.

Rob_the_rich said:

You could argue that the RCD would provide adequate fault current protection

Click to expand...

I don't think you could. Fault current includes overcurrent, and an RCD would do nothing here.

Lurch said:

I don't think you could. Fault current includes overcurrent, and an RCD would do nothing here.

Click to expand...

Of course it does, thanks again Lurch. I am having a brain fade evening/day.

Rob_the_rich said:

Of course it does, thanks again Lurch. I am having a brain fade evening/day.

Click to expand...

It's OK, I'm just here for comedic value.

Rob_the_rich said:

Of course it does, thanks again Lurch. I am having a brain fade evening/day.

Click to expand...

I know the feeling, I've just worked a 14hr day and 45mins travel, and now I'm reading about electric, how sad am I.